Sunday, May 4, 2014

The Universe is: Atoms 4.9% (galaxies), Dark Matter 26.8%, Dark Energy 68.3%?

I just learned something new today, I was looking at a pie chart of what is in the universe at the "Dark Matter" site at Wikipedia and noticed that: as you can see in the following pie charts, Dark Energy is 68.3% and Dark matter is only 26.8%. And Atoms (like we find in Galaxies) is only 4.9% of the known universe. This sort of blew my mind so I wanted too see what Wikipedia had on Dark Energy which I had never heard of before. So, if I add 26.8% (dark matter) and 68.3% (dark energy) then 95.1% of the known universe is composed of dark Matter and dark energy. However, it is important to note that both dark matter and dark energy are called that only because people can't see it, they just know it's there. So, they are trying to learn more about it every day around the world.

I guess some of my questions might be: Why has the amount of dark matter grown smaller the last 13.7 billion years? Also, why have the atoms gone from 12% to 4.9% and Photons gone from 15% to not even being registered on the above chart and why aren't neutrinos even listed on the top chart at all?

 end note.

 

Dark energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Dark flow, Dark fluid, or Dark matter.
Part of a series on
Physical cosmology
Ilc 9yr moll4096.png
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, on a mass–energy equivalence basis the universe contains 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy (for a total of 95.1%) and 4.9% ordinary matter.[2][3][4][5] Again on a mass–energy equivalence basis, the density of dark energy (1.67 × 10−27 kg/m3) is very low: in the solar system, it is estimated only 6 tons of dark energy would be found within the radius of Pluto's orbit. However, it comes to dominate the mass–energy of the universe because it is uniform across space.[6]
Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, a constant energy density filling space homogeneously,[7] and scalar fields such as quintessence or moduli, dynamic quantities whose energy density can vary in time and space. Contributions from scalar fields that are constant in space are usually also included in the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant can be formulated to be equivalent to vacuum energy. Scalar fields that do change in space can be difficult to distinguish from a cosmological constant because the change may be extremely slow.
High-precision measurements of the expansion of the universe are required to understand how the expansion rate changes over time. In general relativity, the evolution of the expansion rate is parameterized by the cosmological equation of state (the relationship between temperature, pressure, and combined matter, energy, and vacuum energy density for any region of space). Measuring the equation of state for dark energy is one of the biggest efforts in observational cosmology today.
Adding the cosmological constant to cosmology's standard FLRW metric leads to the Lambda-CDM model, which has been referred to as the "standard model" of cosmology because of its precise agreement with observations. Dark energy has been used as a crucial ingredient in a recent attempt to formulate a cyclic model for the universe.[8]

Nature of dark energy

Many things about the nature of dark energy remain matters of speculation. The evidence for dark energy is indirect but comes from three independent sources:
  • Distance measurements and their relation to redshift, which suggest the universe has expanded more in the last half of its life.[9]
  • The theoretical need for a type of additional energy that is not matter or dark matter to form our observationally flat universe (absence of any detectable global curvature).
  • It can be inferred from measures of large scale wave-patterns of mass density in the universe.
Dark energy is thought to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is quite rarefied—roughly 10−29 g/cm3—it is unlikely to be detectable in laboratory experiments. Dark energy can have such a profound effect on the universe, making up 68% of universal density, only because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are a cosmological constant and quintessence. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure.

Effect of dark energy: a small constant negative pressure of vacuum

Independently of its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (acting repulsively) in order to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the stress–energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.
In the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting. More exactly, the second derivative of the universe scale factor, \ddot{a}, is positive if the equation of state of the universe is such that \! w<-1/3 (see Friedmann equations).
This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion", which is a colorful but possibly confusing expression. In fact a negative pressure does not influence the gravitational interaction between masses—which remains attractive—but rather alters the overall evolution of the universe at the cosmological scale, typically resulting in the accelerating expansion of the universe despite the attraction among the masses present in the universe.
The acceleration is simply a function of dark energy density. Dark energy is persistent: its density remains constant (experimentally, within a factor of 1:10), i.e. it does not get diluted when space expands.

Evidence of existence

Supernovae

In 1998, published observations of Type Ia supernovae ("one-A") by the High-Z Supernova Search Team[10] followed in 1999 by the Supernova Cosmology Project[11] suggested that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.[12] The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess for this work.[13][14]
Since then, these observations have been corroborated by several independent sources. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing, and the large-scale structure of the cosmos as well as improved measurements of supernovae have been consistent with the Lambda-CDM model.[15] Some people argue that the only indication for the existence of dark energy is observations of distance measurements and associated redshifts. Cosmic microwave background anisotropies and baryon acoustic oscillations are only observations that redshifts are larger than expected from a "dusty" Friedmann–Lemaître universe and the local measured Hubble constant.[16]
Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law. It is relatively easy to measure redshift, but finding the distance to an object is more difficult. Usually, astronomers use standard candles: objects for which the intrinsic brightness, the absolute magnitude, is known. This allows the object's distance to be measured from its actual observed brightness, or apparent magnitude. Type Ia supernovae are the best-known standard candles across cosmological distances because of their extreme and extremely consistent luminosity.
Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.[17]

Cosmic microwave background

Estimated distribution of matter and energy in the universe
The existence of dark energy, in whatever form, is needed to reconcile the measured geometry of space with the total amount of matter in the universe. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.[15] The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft seven-year analysis estimated a universe made up of 72.8% dark energy, 22.7% dark matter and 4.5% ordinary matter.[4] Work done in 2013 based on the Planck spacecraft observations of the CMB gave a more accurate estimate of 68.3% of dark energy, 26.8% of dark matter and 4.9% of ordinary matter.[18]

Large-scale structure

The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.
A 2011 survey, the WiggleZ galaxy survey of more than 200,000 galaxies, provided further evidence towards the existence of dark energy, although the exact physics behind it remains unknown.[19][20] The WiggleZ survey from Australian Astronomical Observatory scanned the galaxies to determine their redshift. Then, by exploiting the fact that baryon acoustic oscillations have left voids regularly of ~150 Mpc diameter, surrounded by the galaxies, the voids were used as standard rulers to determine distances to galaxies as far as 2,000 Mpc (redshift 0.6), which allowed astronomers to determine more accurately the speeds of the galaxies from their redshift and distance. The data confirmed cosmic acceleration up to half of the age of the universe (7 billion years) and constrain its inhomogeneity to 1 part in 10.[20] This provides a confirmation to cosmic acceleration independent of supernovae.

Late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.[21] It was reported at high significance in 2008 by Ho et al.[22] and Giannantonio et al.[23]

Observational Hubble constant data

A new approach to test evidence of dark energy through observational Hubble constant (H(z)) data (OHD) has gained significant attention in recent years.[24][25][26][27] The Hubble constant is measured as a function of cosmological redshift. OHD directly tracks the expansion history of the universe by taking passively evolving early-type galaxies as “cosmic chronometers”.[28] From this point, this approach provides standard clocks in the universe. The core of this idea is the measurement of the differential age evolution as a function of redshift of these cosmic chronometers. Thus, it provides a direct estimate of the Hubble parameter H(z)=-1/(1+z)dz/dt≈-1/(1+z)Δz/Δt. The merit of this approach is clear: the reliance on a differential quantity, Δz/Δt, can minimize many common issues and systematic effects; and as a direct measurement of the Hubble parameter instead of its integral, like supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), it brings more information and is appealing in computation. For these reasons, it has been widely used to examine the accelerated cosmic expansion and study properties of dark energy.

Theories of explanation

Cosmological constant

Main article: Cosmological constant
For more details on this topic, see Equation of state (cosmology).
The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the "cost of having space": that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to represent this quantity mathematically. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that this energy will have a gravitational effect. It is sometimes called a vacuum energy because it is the energy density of empty vacuum. In fact, most theories of particle physics predict vacuum fluctuations that would give the vacuum this sort of energy. This is related to the Casimir effect, in which there is a small suction into regions where virtual particles are geometrically inhibited from forming (e.g. between plates with tiny separation). The cosmological constant is estimated by cosmologists to be on the order of 10−29 g/cm3, or about 10−120 in reduced Planck units[citation needed]. Particle physics predicts a natural value of 1 in reduced Planck units, leading to a large discrepancy.
The cosmological constant has negative pressure equal to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The reason why a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from classical thermodynamics; Energy must be lost from inside a container to do work on the container. A change in volume dV requires work done equal to a change of energy −P dV, where P is the pressure. But the amount of energy in a container full of vacuum actually increases when the volume increases (dV is positive), because the energy is equal to ρV, where ρ (rho) is the energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, P is negative and, in fact, P = −ρ.
A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum, more than 100 orders of magnitude too large.[7] This would need to be cancelled almost, but not exactly, by an equally large term of the opposite sign. Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero,[citation needed] which does not help because supersymmetry must be broken. The present scientific consensus amounts to extrapolating the empirical evidence where it is relevant to predictions, and fine-tuning theories until a more elegant solution is found. Technically, this amounts to checking theories against macroscopic observations. Unfortunately, as the known error-margin in the constant predicts the fate of the universe more than its present state, many such "deeper" questions remain unknown.
In spite of its problems, the cosmological constant is in many respects the most economical solution to the problem of cosmic acceleration. One number successfully explains a multitude of observations. Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant as an essential feature.

Quintessence

Main article: Quintessence (physics)
In quintessence models of dark energy, the observed acceleration of the scale factor is caused by the potential energy of a dynamical field, referred to as quintessence field. Quintessence differs from the cosmological constant in that it can vary in space and time. In order for it not to clump and form structure like matter, the field must be very light so that it has a large Compton wavelength.
No evidence of quintessence is yet available, but it has not been ruled out either. It generally predicts a slightly slower acceleration of the expansion of the universe than the cosmological constant. Some scientists think that the best evidence for quintessence would come from violations of Einstein's equivalence principle and variation of the fundamental constants in space or time.[citation needed] Scalar fields are predicted by the standard model and string theory, but an analogous problem to the cosmological constant problem (or the problem of constructing models of cosmic inflation) occurs: renormalization theory predicts that scalar fields should acquire large masses.
The cosmic coincidence problem asks why the cosmic acceleration began when it did. If cosmic acceleration began earlier in the universe, structures such as galaxies would never have had time to form and life, at least as we know it, would never have had a chance to exist. Proponents of the anthropic principle view this as support for their arguments. However, many models of quintessence have a so-called tracker behavior, which solves this problem. In these models, the quintessence field has a density which closely tracks (but is less than) the radiation density until matter-radiation equality, which triggers quintessence to start behaving as dark energy, eventually dominating the universe. This naturally sets the low energy scale of the dark energy.[citation needed]
In 2004, when scientists fit the evolution of dark energy with the cosmological data, they found that the equation of state had possibly crossed the cosmological constant boundary (w=−1) from above to below. A No-Go theorem has been proved that gives this scenario at least two degrees of freedom as required for dark energy models. This scenario is so-called Quintom scenario.
Some special cases of quintessence are phantom energy, in which the energy density of quintessence actually increases with time, and k-essence (short for kinetic quintessence) which has a non-standard form of kinetic energy. They can have unusual properties: phantom energy, for example, can cause a Big Rip.

Alternative ideas

Some alternatives to dark energy aim to explain the observational data by a more refined use of established theories, focusing, for example, on the gravitational effects of density inhomogeneities, or on consequences of electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe. If we are located in an emptier-than-average region of space, the observed cosmic expansion rate could be mistaken for a variation in time, or acceleration.[29][30][31][32] A different approach uses a cosmological extension of the equivalence principle to show how space might appear to be expanding more rapidly in the voids surrounding our local cluster. While weak, such effects considered cumulatively over billions of years could become significant, creating the illusion of cosmic acceleration, and making it appear as if we live in a Hubble bubble.[33][34][35]
Another class of theories attempts to come up with an all-encompassing theory of both dark matter and dark energy as a single phenomenon that modifies the laws of gravity at various scales. An example of this type of theory is the theory of dark fluid. Another class of theories that unifies dark matter and dark energy are suggested to be covariant theories of modified gravities. These theories alter the dynamics of the space-time such that the modified dynamic stems what have been assigned to the presence of dark energy and dark matter.[36]
A 2011 paper in the journal Physical Review D by Christos Tsagas, a cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece, argued that it is likely that the accelerated expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by the relative motion of us to the rest of the universe. The paper cites data showing that the 2.5 billion ly wide region of space we are inside of is moving very quickly relative to everything around it. If the theory is confirmed, then dark energy would not exist (but the "dark flow" still might).[37][38]
Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of general relativity on very large scales, larger than superclusters.[citation needed] However most attempts at modifying general relativity have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations.[citation needed] Other ideas for dark energy have come from string theory, brane cosmology and the holographic principle, but have not yet proved[citation needed] as compellingly as quintessence and the cosmological constant.
On string theory, an article in the journal Nature described:
String theories, popular with many particle physicists, make it possible, even desirable, to think that the observable universe is just one of 10500 universes in a grander multiverse, says Leonard Susskind, a cosmologist at Stanford University in California. The vacuum energy will have different values in different universes, and in many or most it might indeed be vast. But it must be small in ours because it is only in such a universe that observers such as ourselves can evolve.
—[39]
Paul Steinhardt in the same article criticizes string theory's explanation of dark energy stating "...Anthropics and randomness don't explain anything... I am disappointed with what most theorists are willing to accept".[39]
Another set of proposals is based on the possibility of a double metric tensor for space-time.[40][41] It has been argued that time reversed solutions in general relativity require such double metric for consistency, and that both dark matter and dark energy can be understood in terms of time reversed solutions of general relativity.[42]

Implications for the fate of the universe

Cosmologists estimate that the acceleration began roughly 5 billion years ago. Before that, it is thought that the expansion was decelerating, due to the attractive influence of dark matter and baryons. The density of dark matter in an expanding universe decreases more quickly than dark energy, and eventually the dark energy dominates. Specifically, when the volume of the universe doubles, the density of dark matter is halved, but the density of dark energy is nearly unchanged (it is exactly constant in the case of a cosmological constant).
If the acceleration continues indefinitely, the ultimate result will be that galaxies outside the local supercluster will have a line-of-sight velocity that continually increases with time, eventually far exceeding the speed of light.[43] This is not a violation of special relativity because the notion of "velocity" used here is different from that of velocity in a local inertial frame of reference, which is still constrained to be less than the speed of light for any massive object (see Uses of the proper distance for a discussion of the subtleties of defining any notion of relative velocity in cosmology). Because the Hubble parameter is decreasing with time, there can actually be cases where a galaxy that is receding from us faster than light does manage to emit a signal which reaches us eventually.[44][45] However, because of the accelerating expansion, it is projected that most galaxies will eventually cross a type of cosmological event horizon where any light they emit past that point will never be able to reach us at any time in the infinite future[46] because the light never reaches a point where its "peculiar velocity" toward us exceeds the expansion velocity away from us (these two notions of velocity are also discussed in Uses of the proper distance). Assuming the dark energy is constant (a cosmological constant), the current distance to this cosmological event horizon is about 16 billion light years, meaning that a signal from an event happening at present would eventually be able to reach us in the future if the event were less than 16 billion light years away, but the signal would never reach us if the event were more than 16 billion light years away.[45]
As galaxies approach the point of crossing this cosmological event horizon, the light from them will become more and more redshifted, to the point where the wavelength becomes too large to detect in practice and the galaxies appear to disappear completely[47][48] (see Future of an expanding universe). The Earth, the Milky Way, and the Virgo Supercluster, however, would remain virtually undisturbed while the rest of the universe recedes and disappears from view. In this scenario, the local supercluster would ultimately suffer heat death, just as was thought for the flat, matter-dominated universe before measurements of cosmic acceleration.
There are some very speculative ideas about the future of the universe. One suggests that phantom energy causes divergent expansion, which would imply that the effective force of dark energy continues growing until it dominates all other forces in the universe. Under this scenario, dark energy would ultimately tear apart all gravitationally bound structures, including galaxies and solar systems, and eventually overcome the electrical and nuclear forces to tear apart atoms themselves, ending the universe in a "Big Rip". On the other hand, dark energy might dissipate with time or even become attractive. Such uncertainties leave open the possibility that gravity might yet rule the day and lead to a universe that contracts in on itself in a "Big Crunch". Some scenarios, such as the cyclic model, suggest this could be the case. It is also possible the universe may never have an end and continue in its present state forever (see The Second Law as a law of disorder). While these ideas are not supported by observations, they are not ruled out.

History of discovery and previous speculation

The cosmological constant was first proposed by Einstein as a mechanism to obtain a solution of the gravitational field equation that would lead to a static universe, effectively using dark energy to balance gravity.[49] Not only was the mechanism an inelegant example of fine-tuning but it was also later realized that Einstein's static universe would actually be unstable because local inhomogeneities would ultimately lead to either the runaway expansion or contraction of the universe. The equilibrium is unstable: If the universe expands slightly, then the expansion releases vacuum energy, which causes yet more expansion. Likewise, a universe which contracts slightly will continue contracting. These sorts of disturbances are inevitable, due to the uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe. More importantly, observations made by Edwin Hubble in 1929 showed that the universe appears to be expanding and not static at all. Einstein reportedly referred to his failure to predict the idea of a dynamic universe, in contrast to a static universe, as his greatest blunder.[50]
Alan Guth and Alexei Starobinsky proposed in 1980 that a negative pressure field, similar in concept to dark energy, could drive cosmic inflation in the very early universe. Inflation postulates that some repulsive force, qualitatively similar to dark energy, resulted in an enormous and exponential expansion of the universe slightly after the Big Bang. Such expansion is an essential feature of most current models of the Big Bang. However, inflation must have occurred at a much higher energy density than the dark energy we observe today and is thought to have completely ended when the universe was just a fraction of a second old. It is unclear what relation, if any, exists between dark energy and inflation. Even after inflationary models became accepted, the cosmological constant was thought to be irrelevant to the current universe.
Nearly all inflation models predict that the total (matter+energy) density of the universe should be very close to the critical density. During the 1980s, most cosmological research focused on models with critical density in matter only, usually 95% cold dark matter and 5% ordinary matter (baryons). These models were found to be successful at forming realistic galaxies and clusters, but some problems appeared in the late 1980s: notably, the model required a value for the Hubble constant lower than preferred by observations, and the model under-predicted observations of large-scale galaxy clustering. These difficulties became stronger after the discovery of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background by the COBE spacecraft in 1992, and several modified CDM models came under active study through the mid-1990s: these included the Lambda-CDM model and a mixed cold/hot dark matter model. The first direct evidence for dark energy came from supernova observations in 1998 of accelerated expansion in Riess et al.[10] and in Perlmutter et al.,[11] and the Lambda-CDM model then became the leading model. Soon after, dark energy was supported by independent observations: in 2000, the BOOMERanG and Maxima cosmic microwave background experiments observed the first acoustic peak in the CMB, showing that the total (matter+energy) density is close to 100% of critical density. Then in 2001, the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey gave strong evidence that the matter density is around 30% of critical. The large difference between these two supports a smooth component of dark energy making up the difference. Much more precise measurements from WMAP in 2003-2010 have continued to support the standard model and give more accurate measurements of the key parameters.
The term "dark energy", echoing Fritz Zwicky's "dark matter" from the 1930s, was coined by Michael Turner in 1998.[51]
As of 2013, the Lambda-CDM model is consistent with a series of increasingly rigorous cosmological observations, including the Planck spacecraft and the Supernova Legacy Survey. First results from the SNLS reveal that the average behavior (i.e., equation of state) of dark energy behaves like Einstein's cosmological constant to a precision of 10%.[52] Recent results from the Hubble Space Telescope Higher-Z Team indicate that dark energy has been present for at least 9 billion years and during the period preceding cosmic acceleration.

See also

References

  1. Peebles, P. J. E. and Ratra, Bharat (2003). "The cosmological constant and dark energy". Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2): 559–606. arXiv:astro-ph/0207347. Bibcode:2003RvMP...75..559P. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559.
  2. Ade, P. A. R.; Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.; et al. (Planck Collaboration) (22 March 2013). "Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and scientific results – Table 9.". Astronomy and Astrophysics (submitted). arXiv:1303.5062. Bibcode:2013arXiv1303.5062P.
  3. Ade, P. A. R.; Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.; et al. (Planck Collaboration) (31 March 2013). "Planck 2013 Results Papers". Astronomy and Astrophysics (submitted). arXiv:1303.5062. Bibcode:2013arXiv1303.5062P.
  4. "First Planck results: the Universe is still weird and interesting".
  5. Sean Carroll, Ph.D., Cal Tech, 2007, The Teaching Company, Dark Matter, Dark Energy: The Dark Side of the Universe, Guidebook Part 2 page 46, Accessed Oct. 7, 2013, "...dark energy: A smooth, persistent component of invisible energy, thought to make up about 70 percent of the current energy density of the universe. Dark energy is known to be smooth because it doesn't accumulate preferentially in galaxies and clusters..."
  6. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/dareng.html
  7. Carroll, Sean (2001). "The cosmological constant". Living Reviews in Relativity 4. Retrieved 2006-09-28.
  8. Baum, L. and Frampton, P.H. (2007). "Turnaround in Cyclic Cosmology". Physical Review Letters 98 (7): 071301. arXiv:hep-th/0610213. Bibcode:2007PhRvL..98g1301B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.071301. PMID 17359014.
  9. R. Durrer (2011). What do we really know about Dark Energy?. arXiv:1103.5331. Bibcode:2011arXiv1103.5331D.
  10. Adam G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team) (1998). "Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant". Astronomical J. 116 (3): 1009–38. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201. Bibcode:1998AJ....116.1009R. doi:10.1086/300499.
  11. Perlmutter, S. et al. (The Supernova Cosmology Project) (1999). "Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae". Astrophysical Journal 517 (2): 565–86. arXiv:astro-ph/9812133. Bibcode:1999ApJ...517..565P. doi:10.1086/307221.
  12. The first paper, using observed data, which claimed a positive Lambda term was Paal, G. et al. (1992). "Inflation and compactification from galaxy redshifts?". ApSS 191: 107–24. Bibcode:1992Ap&SS.191..107P. doi:10.1007/BF00644200.
  13. "The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011". Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
  14. The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011. Perlmutter got half the prize, and the other half was shared between Schmidt and Riess.
  15. Spergel, D. N. et al. (WMAP collaboration) (March 2006). Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results: implications for cosmology.
  16. Durrer, R. (2011). "What do we really know about dark energy?". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369: 5102–5114. arXiv:astro-ph/1103.5331. Bibcode:2011RSPTA.369.5102D. doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0285.
  17. Kowalski, Marek; Rubin, David (October 27, 2008). "Improved Cosmological Constraints from New, Old and Combined Supernova Datasets". The Astrophysical Journal (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 686 (2): 749–778. arXiv:0804.4142. Bibcode:2008ApJ...686..749K. doi:10.1086/589937. . They find a best fit value of the dark energy density, \Omega_{\Lambda} of 0.713+0.027–0.029(stat)+0.036–0.039(sys), of the total matter density, \Omega_{M}, of 0.274+0.016–0.016(stat)+0.013–0.012(sys) with an equation of state parameter w of −0.969+0.059–0.063(stat)+0.063–0.066(sys).
  18. "Big Bang’s afterglow shows universe is 80 million years older than scientists first thought". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 March 2013.[dead link]
  19. "New method 'confirms dark energy'". BBC News. 2011-05-19.
  20. Dark energy is real, Swinburne University of Technology, 19 May 2011
  21. Crittenden; Neil Turok (1995). "Looking for $\Lambda$ with the Rees-Sciama Effect". Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (4): 575–578. arXiv:astro-ph/9510072. Bibcode:1996PhRvL..76..575C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.575. PMID 10061494.
  22. Shirley Ho; Hirata; Nikhil Padmanabhan; Uros Seljak; Neta Bahcall (2008). "Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure: I. ISW Tomography and Cosmological Implications". Phys. Rev. D 78 (4). arXiv:0801.0642. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78d3519H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.043519.
  23. Tommaso Giannantonio; Ryan Scranton; Crittenden; Nichol; Boughn; Myers; Richards (2008). "Combined analysis of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect and cosmological implications". Phys. Rev. D 77 (12). arXiv:0801.4380. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..77l3520G. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.123520.
  24. Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang (2007). "Constraints on holographic dark energy models using the differential ages of passively evolving galaxies". Modern Physics Letters A 22 (01). arXiv:astro-ph/0605.596. doi:10.1142/S0217732307020889.
  25. Haoyi Wan; Zelong Yi; Tongjie Zhang; Jie Zhou (2007). "Constraints on the DGP Universe Using Observational Hubble parameter". Physics Letters B 651 (05). arXiv:astro-ph/0706.2723. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.06.053.
  26. Cong Ma; Tongjie Zhang (2010). "Power of Observational Hubble Parameter Data: a Figure of Merit Exploration". Astrophys. J. 730 (2). arXiv:astro-ph/1007.3787. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/74.
  27. Tongjie Zhang; Cong Ma; Tian Lan (2010). "Constraints on the Dark Side of the Universe and Observational Hubble Parameter Data". Advances in Astronomy 2010 (01). arXiv:astro-ph/1010.1307. doi:10.1155/2010/184284.
  28. Joan Simon; Licia Verde; Raul Jimenez (2005). "Constraints on the redshift dependence of the dark energy potential". Physical Review D 71 (12). arXiv:astro-ph/0412.269. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.123001.
  29. Wiltshire, David L. (2007). "Exact Solution to the Averaging Problem in Cosmology". Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (25): 251101. arXiv:0709.0732. Bibcode:2007PhRvL..99y1101W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.251101. PMID 18233512.
  30. Ishak, Mustapha; Richardson, James; Garred, David; Whittington, Delilah; Nwankwo, Anthony; Sussman, Roberto (2007). "Dark Energy or Apparent Acceleration Due to a Relativistic Cosmological Model More Complex than FLRW?". Phys. Rev. D 78 (12). arXiv:0708.2943. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78l3531I. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123531.
  31. Mattsson, Teppo (2007). "Dark energy as a mirage". Gen. Rel. Grav. 42 (3): 567–599. arXiv:0711.4264. Bibcode:2010GReGr..42..567M. doi:10.1007/s10714-009-0873-z.
  32. Clifton, Timothy; Ferreira, Pedro (April 2009). "Does Dark Energy Really Exist?". Scientific American 300 (4): 48–55. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0409-48. PMID 19363920. Retrieved April 30, 2009.
  33. Wiltshire, David. "Title: Cosmological equivalence principle and the weak-field limit". Retrieved 27 January 2013.
  34. Gray, Stuart. "Dark questions remain over dark energy". ABC Science Australia. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
  35. Merali, Zeeya (March 2012). "Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
  36. Exirifard, Q. (2010). "Phenomenological covariant approach to gravity". General Relativity and Gravitation 43: 93–106. arXiv:0808.1962. Bibcode:2011GReGr..43...93E. doi:10.1007/s10714-010-1073-6.
  37. Wolchover, Natalie (27 September 2011) 'Accelerating universe' could be just an illusion, msnbc.msn.com
  38. Tsagas, Christos G. (2011). "Peculiar motions, accelerated expansion, and the cosmological axis". Physical Review D 84: 063503. arXiv:1107.4045. Bibcode:2011PhRvD..84f3503T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.063503.
  39. Hogan, Jenny (2007). "Unseen Universe: Welcome to the dark side". Nature 448 (7151): 240–245. Bibcode:2007Natur.448..240H. doi:10.1038/448240a. PMID 17637630.
  40. Hossenfelder, S. (2008). "A Bi-Metric Theory with Exchange Symmetry". Physical Review D 78 (4): 044015. arXiv:0807.2838. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..78d4015H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.044015.
  41. Henry-Couannier, F. (2005). International Journal of Modern Physics A 20 (11): 2341. arXiv:gr-qc/0410055. Bibcode:2005IJMPA..20.2341H. doi:10.1142/S0217751X05024602.
  42. Ripalda, Jose M. (1999). "Time reversal and negative energies in general relativity". Eprint arXiv: 6012. arXiv:gr-qc/9906012. Bibcode:1999gr.qc.....6012R.
  43. Krauss, Lawrence M. and Scherrer, Robert J. (March 2008). "The End of Cosmology?". Scientific American 82. Retrieved 2011-01-06.
  44. Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light? (see the last two paragraphs)
  45. Lineweaver, Charles; Tamara M. Davis (2005). "Misconceptions about the Big Bang". Scientific American. Retrieved 2008-11-06.
  46. Loeb, Abraham (2002). "The Long-Term Future of Extragalactic Astronomy". Physical Review D 65 (4). arXiv:/0107568 astro-ph /0107568. Bibcode:2002PhRvD..65d7301L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.047301.
  47. Krauss, Lawrence M.; Robert J. Scherrer (2007). "The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology". General Relativity and Gravitation 39 (10): 1545–1550. arXiv:0704.0221. Bibcode:2007GReGr..39.1545K. doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0472-9.
  48. Using Tiny Particles To Answer Giant Questions. Science Friday, 3 Apr 2009. According to the transcript, Brian Greene makes the comment "And actually, in the far future, everything we now see, except for our local galaxy and a region of galaxies will have disappeared. The entire universe will disappear before our very eyes, and it's one of my arguments for actually funding cosmology. We've got to do it while we have a chance."
  49. Harvey, Alex (2012). "How Einstein Discovered Dark Energy". arXiv. arXiv:1211.6338. Bibcode:2012arXiv1211.6338H.
  50. George Gamow, in his autobiography "My World Line: An Informal Autobiography" (1970) on page 44 writes "Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life." – Here the "cosmological term" refers to the cosmological constant in the equations of general relativity, whose value Einstein initially picked to ensure that his model of the universe would neither expand nor contract; if he hadn't done this he might have theoretically predicted the universal expansion that was first observed by Edwin Hubble.
  51. The first appearance of the term "dark energy" is in the article with another cosmologist and Turner's student at the time, Dragan Huterer, "Prospects for Probing the Dark Energy via Supernova Distance Measurements", which was posted to the ArXiv.org e-print archive in August 1998 and published in Physical Review D in 1999 (Huterer and Turner, Phys. Rev. D 60, 081301 (1999)), although the manner in which the term is treated there suggests it was already in general use. Cosmologist Saul Perlmutter has credited Turner with coining the term in an article they wrote together with Martin White of the University of Illinois for Physical Review Letters, where it is introduced in quotation marks as if it were a neologism.
  52. Astier, Pierre et al. (Supernova Legacy Survey) (2006). "The Supernova legacy survey: Measurement of omega(m), omega(lambda) and W from the first year data set". Astronomy and Astrophysics 447: 31–48. arXiv:astro-ph/0510447. Bibcode:2006A&A...447...31A. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054185.

External links

This page was last modified on 2 May 2014 at 16:57.

end quote from:
dark energy from Wikipedia
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)